Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Good Debate

Posted on: May 6, 2007 - 11:23pm

Simon66

Posts: 14

Joined: 2007-03-15

Offline

Good Debate

The debate was great, I've been listening to it on your Stickam page.You guys should do your own TV show. If Ray and Puppet have a christian show there is definately room for an Atheist show. Your country needs a rational counterpoint.

If that was the best the evangelicals could come up with I am dissapointed.

Sapient, I noticed you used some points from the forum, It's good to see the community here is so supportive. I'd go as far as to say that historically, atheism has been an individual pursuit and group support and community is a new thing to most of us atheists.

I hope you guys do many more of these, it can only help to highlight the garbage they spouted when it is put under a spotlight and questioned.

People like Ray and Kirk are so used to not being questioned, that their answers were like baby talk at times, and their circular arguements and answers were bizarre to say the least. That is problem with leaders of faith, their 'deep' thoughts and stories are moreoften like Hallmark cards than profound wisdoms.

It seems to me that what they also tended to do was not answer questions directed at them, but answer questions they had made up in the privacy of their own homes, questions that sounded deep, but were in fact banal sound bites, with equally banal sound bite answers.

Something that could be touched on in future debates, (it may have been in this one, I missed some of it) is that not only did they not prove the existance of god, they offered no proof to support any of the outlandish claims they made - eg.Q. who made god?A. god is outside time and space, he is infinite.How can they possibly know this???Also something to be wary of in future (I don't know how you can argue with it though) is the fact that they -christians - change the English language to suit themselves, sometimes in the middle of an arguement. Deliberately misleading people about the meaning of words and concepts eg. 'Theory'. It makes debating like wrestling jello.

It seems to me that what they also tended to do was not answer questions directed at them, but answer questions they had made up in the privacy of their own homes, questions that sounded deep, but were in fact banal sound bites, with equally banal sound bite answers.

Yes. And I think this is precisely because they have not critically examined their beliefs.

Quote:

Something that could be touched on in future debates, (it may have been in this one, I missed some of it) is that not only did they not prove the existance of god, they offered no proof to support any of the outlandish claims they made - eg.

Q. who made god?A. god is outside time and space, he is infinite.How can they possibly know this???

How about this:

How can you say that any thing 'exists' outside of space and time, when in order to exist, a thing must exist as some thing (the law of identity)?

When they assert 'god' is 'outside of space and time" they are saying something wholly negative.... they are not saying what 'god' is, they are saying what 'god' isn't.... So in a sense, they are saying nothing, because what else does it mean to say that something has no spatial or temporal dimension? To say that something is zero dimensional is to say that it does not exist.

It seems to me that what they also tended to do was not answer questions directed at them, but answer questions they had made up in the privacy of their own homes, questions that sounded deep, but were in fact banal sound bites, with equally banal sound bite answers.

Yea, it's the difference between being glib and intelligent. (I mentioned that.)

Way to go Ya'll, I really appreciate your efforts. The Fresno Atheists will get together and view it. And pick it apart.

I'm sure there are many other posts around congratulating you guys on your Nightline debate. but alas, i am lazy.

Very well done job guys on the whole debate with the theists! I am really happy to see some sensibility being broadcasted to the public. I truly believe you guys are helping the world become a better place a little at a time. And just the face you guys made kirk cameron make was priceless.

Has Brian and Kelly prepared a press release with their take on the debate? I'd like to feature this on my web site - Obviously comfort has declared victory (duh, like he wasn't going to no matter what happened). He merely claims the audience was rude... I'm hoping RRS provides an itemized outline of what they did wrong.

Where is Kirks left hand and why is he smiling at Brian like that?

I am not impressed with Sapiant or the RRS. Spiant is a nice guy and all, but he isn't up to things like this. He isn't an authority on anything and all he can do is the equivalent of what they do, spout out the typical "atheist arguments".

No offense to TRRS, but that was a terrible debate. I'm not even certain a debate actually even happened. This of course is because Cameron and Comfort didn’t actually debate anything.

What the hell was that at the end "I think they'll figure it out." We have, you're both idiots. As a human being, I'm embarrassed for these two. Their arguments are so weak and full of holes that a child should easily be able to see through them.

I love how Cameron describes himself as a reformed atheist, evolutionist. Can someone define what it is to be an Evolutionist? Shouldn’t that title require some small understanding of Evolution, before you can bandy it about as if you have some sort of authority on the subject?

Honestly, their comments don’t even deserve rebuttal, it was a pathetic attempt to preach faith to an audience who came looking for fact. How can someone not understand that their personal "spiritual" revelation is NOT factual scientific evidence is beyond laughable.

Nicely done though, honestly the only reason I watched it was because I wanted to watch them get destroyed. I've listened to their arguments before and nothing's changed.

You guys did good overall, but if one observation I made, was that you guys looked a bit nervous in front of the camera; Kelly in particular. Of course, you will get better and Im looking forward to seeing ya again. One thing I thought that might have been good to bring up, is the idea that they know what "god" wants. How can we as mortals possibly psychoanalyze the intents of a supreme entity? Also, the "only atheists go to heaven" argument a la Richard Carrier would have been an interesting topic. I especially loved the way they had absolutley NO response to your Occams Razor argument. "Deer in the head lights" I say.

Well I'm watching it right now on the ABC website. Once I saw Ray come out with the damn coke can, I just couldn't stop laughing. He just starts using the same old debunked arguements making this entire debate worthless.

Oh by the way, no offense Brian, but it looks like you just woke up and threw some random things on; or you were just hung over.

"I, on the other hand, do not feel it necessary to construct a lofty meaning for myself. I prefer the style of the butterfly myself. I will eat what I want, flit about aimlessly, and enjoy the sunshine. Then, I will die. " - Nero, RRS Forum User

Nice job with the ABC News debate. I have two criticisms with Sapient's reasoning, however.

1. Ockham's Razor dos not say the simplest explanation is probably the best one. It says that for any given explanation, the best version of it is the one with all the extraneous details left out. Thus, it doesn't favor any explanation over any other. It just prescribes how to present it best.

2. Conservation of Mass/Energy is perhaps not the best arguement for concluding that the universe has always existed. In quantum physics, gravity is considered to be negative energy. In fact, for a given mass, the graivity potential is exactly -mc^2 (i.e. the negative of the energy content). Thus, the sum of all the mass/energy and gravity in the universe is quite likely to be zero (within Heisenberg's limits). The whole universe really might be something (everything) from nothing.

When Ray Comfort breaks into "every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, every creation has a creator." line of reasoning, the quickest way to defeat this argument is to show the circular logic involved. A painting is defined by having been made by a painter. A building is defined by having been made by a builder. The end result objects are defined by the manner in which they came into existence.

In short, before even talking about whether or not Ray Comfort believes his own premise that every creation has a creator, we have to first ask if existence and creation are synonymous in this case.

I caught the show on nightline and I have to say, while the clips I saw on the internet were great, showing Mike Seaver and the Banana guy getting owned, what was show on nightline was really poorly edited. They showed very little of the actual debate and only people's reactions.

I really was looking foward to seeing the debate in its entirity so I could decide better who won.

Agreed... They edited it VERY poorly... Especially when they took out the part about the "Ten Commandments" They barely put it any time for the actual debate... Although, I thought "Kelly" did a much worse job than Sapient. She seemed extremely nervous and even too quick too pull the trigger on an argument that just didn't make much sense. Overall, it was pretty clear who the winner was, because there wasn't one argument I heard from them and thought "Yeah that makes sense" and that is a sign bias or no bias that they didn't do their job.

As a side note... When Kirk Cameron pulled out those pictures and was like "The crocoduck..." The look on Sapients face was priceless... That was so damn funny.

It has to be aggravating for you guys; looking at the finished product that ABC presented on nightline. When you listen to the arguments in the complete debate Sapient and Kelly wiped the floor with the opposition. However, the nightline edit makes it look as if it were a fair fight. In fact, I would argue from that edit that Cameron and Comfort won. They spoke more clearly than Kelly and Sapient, they got more airtime for their arguments, and nightline did that great sympathy building interview shot plus showed the apology for being so harsh. Typical journalism! Now for my criticism. I don’t want to sound too presumptuous, but Sapient and Kelly; you need work on your speaking skills. You’ve had a wealth of public exposure and it’s imperative that you make the most of it. When it comes to persuasion, delivery is just as or more important than content. Get rid of those ums. It’s better to say nothing at all than utter meaningless syllables. Improve your enunciation and work on your word flow. Try using as few words as possible to get your point across and stop rephrasing and repeating your arguments. Maybe try attending toastmasters or something similar for a little while. One last hint. Television uses only small bites of the full message, and they will edit out anything they see as too unusual or controversial. Come prepared with the points you really want to make and put them into one to three line bites that are well written and throw them into your speech.

Yes, i thought that was probably one of the weakest points discussed. Jesus did in fact exist, there are too many facts out there that point to his existance. however, what so many historians don't agree with is the fact that he was the son of god and the divine spirit that the bible claims.

Jesus was probably simple a man who himself beilived he was chosen by God to do a mission, he had charisma and so gathered many followers. I suggest the following book which looks at Jesus in a pure factual way and compares the bible with other history books.

Kelly got tripped up when saying she'd rather spend an eternity in hell, than an enternity in heaven worshipping a "megalomaniacal" God. You're validating their position by even considering such a possibility. That's why I find the whole "Blasphemy Challenge" absurd.

Hopefully in the future, you stick more to the facts and rely less on sarcastic quips or cheap jibes. Try watching Sam Harris debate. Never raises his voice, never strays from historical or scientific evidence, just politely and systemically anhilitates his opponents arguments.

Kelly got tripped up when saying she'd rather spend an eternity in hell, than an enternity in heaven worshipping a "megalomaniacal" God. You're validating their position by even considering such a possibility. That's why I find the whole "Blasphemy Challenge" absurd.

Hopefully in the future, you stick more to the facts and rely less on sarcastic quips or cheap jibes. Try watching Sam Harris debate. Never raises his voice, never strays from historical or scientific evidence, just politely and systemically anhilitates his opponents arguments.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

For many people, a convincing rationale for abandoning religion is recognizing that the notion of heaven and hell does not make sense.

If god will make you suffer for eternity merely because you aren't sure if the holy spirit exists, that's stupid, and good indication that this "god" people claim exists, even if he did exist, is not worthy of serious consideration.

If god, as documented in the bible exists, then he is a megalomanical tyrant with severe insecurity issues. His version of heaven would likely be hell for a free thinker.

This is a very valid point. Some people don't like this notion because:

a) It shows that you can not believe in god and be very confident... to the point of arrogance. Many theists cannot imagine feeling comfortable without support from their delusion so the more confident an atheist is, the more significant a message is sent.

b) Religion is based on fear; showing no fear is an effective way of nullifying the principal element religion uses to control people. Mocking doctrine is a very effective way of demonstrating a complete lack of fear.

I'm really tired of people, especially atheists acting like theists, with their pretentious judgemental crap, implying that there's one proper way to debate the issue and anything else is uncivilized. That's bogus. You typically can't reason with theists - they're not open-minded in the first place, so people like Dawkins and Sam Harris who (cue British accent) "respectfully disagree with you on the basis of your belief old boy" in all likelihood don't accomplish much. I think this argument is analagous to someone suggesting that telling a crackhead they're killing themselves and to stop is inappropriate and a better thing to do is sit down next to them and respectfully suggest, "Hey, maybe you might want to cut down on the crack. mmkay?"

Religion encroaches into the rights of people more and more each day. We don't have the time, nor the freedom, to sit down and reason with some of these deluded weirdos. The most effective approach nowadays is to simply be honest, and tell them they're ideas are unfounded and delusional. Mocking them is very effective. That's what religion does on a regular basis to non-believers.

You're right, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are completely ineffective - the should employ more "mockery.

No, they're not ineffective, but against certain demographic groups their style doesn't work. The average American is not impressed by intelligence and eloquence, or have you not been paying attention to mainstream media for the last decade or two?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Masterpiece Theatre and McNeil-Lehrer has been replaced by Baywatch and America's Craziest Police Chases Caught On Tape...

You guys are very impressive. Though you made some mistakes (as you've clearly identified) the debate was a resounding success and should prove to be great practice for more difficult debates in the future.

I can't tell you enough, what an awesome job you did. I want to have Brian and Kellys fat pink babies.

You guys are very impressive. Though you made some mistakes (as you've clearly identified) the debate was a resounding success and should prove to be great practice for more difficult debates in the future.

I can't tell you enough, what an awesome job you did. I want to have Brian and Kellys fat pink babies.

Hopefully in the future, you stick more to the facts and rely less on sarcastic quips or cheap jibes. Try watching Sam Harris debate. Never raises his voice, never strays from historical or scientific evidence, just politely and systemically anhilitates his opponents arguments.

This is true. I've found the best way to argue with christians is to never insult them, never raise your voice, never curse, just show the facts. Just debunk any of their arguements and calmly and quietly put them out of their misery. You'll find if you do it this way, they are much more quicker to flare and before the debate is over you'll find yourself being insulted so much more than you insulting anyone.

I enjoyed the debate in the sense that Ray and Kirk got destroyed. However, I didn't enjoy it in the fact that it wasn't a real debate. Ray and Kirk tried to use faith and the bible and assumptions to prove their theories.

You could tell that Ray had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when he came into the discussion with his "coca-cola" can arguement. That if something is designed, then it must have a designer. He used a logical fallacy to try and make his point. If a Coca-cola can is designed and has a designer then a human must have been designed and must have a designer as well. Well, that might work.. assuming that we were designed. He is under the assumption that the human body, that humans in general are designed to be the way they are. Well I say to him.. what proof does he have that we were designed other than assumptions?

I was personally ticked off when Kirk started trying to disprove evolution with his cross-breeding pictures. He came into that "debate" with preconceived notions of what evolution was and didn't even bother to do the proper research. You could see with how he tried to debunk evolution that he didn't even have the first clue with how it worked. He couldn't even understand the basics of how the genes are passed on from generation to generation. Like when sapient tried to explain we are constantly changing, they didn't understand that by constantly changing he means that we are acquiring new genes each generation, not that we are changing physically with each passing day, but with each time our species mates, reproduces and passes on those newly acquired genes. Natural selection~. They couldn't even understand that, much less how any of evolution works.

But, other than Kelly and Brian needing to shape up some things here and there, as far as.. keeping their cool and trying not to get frustrated they did a good job. But, they'll get better as they go and I look forward to watching future debates.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.

"Wow, intelligent insight. The debate did it's purpose, it made you think. Whether you like it or not, there are people who think differently than you and this does not make them imbeciles. "

True, there are. But the persons participating to this debate were not part of that group. Using the first principle of thermodynamics to "prove" there was always something and thus God created nothing is the worst argument I have ever heard. Not only is it scientifically inaccurate (nobody knows if thermodynamics were always applicable, certainly at the beginning of the universe, and near black holes for example, thermodynamics are useless), it is not a proof that there was always something! Actually modern science say there wasnt. If we believe the Big Bang theory, all started there. There was no "before", because time simply didnt exist "before". So it really started there, and some indeed believe that there must be something transcendental or infinite which set loose this chain of events. And so far, rationality has had a hard time proving them wrong. Ask Nietzsche. These two persons here have a lot, a very lot to read and understand before they will be able to hold some kind of proper debate!

"Wow, intelligent insight. The debate did it's purpose, it made you think. Whether you like it or not, there are people who think differently than you and this does not make them imbeciles. "

True, there are. But the persons participating to this debate were not part of that group. Using the first principle of thermodynamics to "prove" there was always something and thus God created nothing is the worst argument I have ever heard. Not only is it scientifically inaccurate (nobody knows if thermodynamics were always applicable, certainly at the beginning of the universe, and near black holes for example, thermodynamics are useless), it is not a proof that there was always something! Actually modern science say there wasnt. If we believe the Big Bang theory, all started there. There was no "before", because time simply didnt exist "before". So it really started there, and some indeed believe that there must be something transcendental or infinite which set loose this chain of events. And so far, rationality has had a hard time proving them wrong. Ask Nietzsche. These two persons here have a lot, a very lot to read and understand before they will be able to hold some kind of proper debate!

The problem with your insinuation in that what Brian and Kelly presented has bounds and leaps more scientific backing then any manmade god used to exploit people's fear of death and hell as a tool to yield power. "We don't understand the ways of the science or the Universe!! Therefore, an all knowing, all powerful being must have created everything and have all the answers since i don't. Ahhh, I feel much better, and the headaches are gone."

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

"The problem with your insinuation in that what Brian and Kelly presented has bounds and leaps more scientific backing then any manmade god used to exploit people's fear of death and hell as a tool to yield power."

Im sorry, I really dont understand that sentence. I dont say this condescendingly, I just dont see what youre trying to say.

And Im not going to debate on wether or not God exists, Im not sure what to think of it myself. All I mean is that the arguments presented in this debates were often erroneous and terribly simplistic.

And when you say, portraying a simple-minded reasoning leading towards the exisence of god: "Therefore, an all knowing, all powerful being must have created everything and have all the answers since i don't". I think thats not the only way of thought that leads towards the belief of the existence of god. Think about this. There are numerous very intelligent, rational-thinking, eminent scientists who still believed in god (Descartes, copernicus, newton, keppler, kelvin planck, einstein, faraday, boyle,...). Science and god are not mutually exclusive. Neither are rationality and god. But thats of course my opinion and I would respect other ones and maybe even be convinced by them, if they were well construed and of intellectual significance. Which is not the case here.

"Im sorry, I really dont understand that sentence. I dont say this condescendingly, I just dont see what youre trying to say."

What I'm saying here is that the explanations that brian and kelly used to disprove god (note: not to prove that there is no god) has much more scientific and logical weight then anything that Kirk and and Ray could possibly dream up (Crocoduck....are you fucking kidding me?).

"And Im not going to debate on wether or not God exists, Im not sure what to think of it myself. All I mean is that the arguments presented in this debates were often erroneous and terribly simplistic."

Well that seems to be the question at hand isn't it. Perhaps you could be more specific in the flaws that you see. Correct Brian and Kelly admitadly made some slip ups, but even at their B game managed to debunk everything that Kurt and Ray spewed.

"And when you say, portraying a simple-minded reasoning leading towards the exisence of god..."

That statement is false. I didnot say that a simple minded reasoning leads to believing in an all powerful being. I simply said it is a simple solution to a complex problem. Some of the most logical beings on the planet manage still to stay true to their instilled beliefs. To quote Kelly in the debate:

"Science and god are not mutually exclusive. Neither are rationality and god."

The concept of a god in itself is irrational, and is a belief that must be instilled, a belief that you would not come to unless you were taught it. You like to use god in order to explain what science is not yet capable of explaining, thereby coupling the two together, how convenient. To make such a logical jump is not rational, and therefore god and rationality are mutually exclusive, they cannot coexist in the same brain without contradiction. Perhaps you would worship Athena had you been raised to do so.

"But thats of course my opinion and I would respect other ones and maybe even be convinced by them, if they were well construed and of intellectual significance. Which is not the case here"

I believe my argument was of intellectual significance, however you dismiss it without addressing it specifically. Have you considered the possibility that it just may surpass your intellectual capacity? Maybe it makes you feel yucky to question your faith and research other possibilities, so you just don't bother.

At any rate, Kelly and Brian's argument was very intelligently and rationally presented. Which is more then I can say for Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron (the same wonderful experts who said that the bannana was living proof of Almighty God's existence).

More proof should be required to prove god's existence then to disprove it, however the evidence is to the contrary. There is much evidence supporting the absense of a god, and not a shred of supporting. Save of course some manmade scripts. However with that argument we should all get on our knees and worship are olympian god of choice. Whether it be Zeus, Hera, or Apollo. For so it is written in the Odyssey, must be proof enough for existence.

Stay Rational,

Zeus

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

Sigh, this is getting where I dont want it to get, because I didnt want a lengthy discussion, but I cant resist it.

First of all, Im not a theist, nor an atheist. Im twenty years old, and I simply dont know. I think I havent had enough life experience and I'm not well-read enough yet to judge on something like that.

Second of all, I did not say, nowhere!, that these two other persons "kirk and ray" were right. They seem to be equally or maybe more unskilled as their opponents and their arguments are indeed completely dogmatic (in the case of the bible) and simplistic (that painting argument).

What I say, and its my main point here, is that this debate has no value, because the persons participating are all amateurish novices and therefore cannot debate at a proper intellectual level. Believe me, I understand every word they say and every argument they use. But it is all terribly dumbed-down. You pick one of their arguments if you want me to break it, and Ill do it. I think the first law of thermodynamics-argument was enough of an example to discredit them.

"The concept of a god in itself is irrational"

This is where it gets tricky indeed, and its hard to stay objective. As I told you, god is not something you invoke to explain the unexplainable. It was often done so in human history, but one can believe in a god for other reasons. It is not irrational as even rational reasoning cannot disprove it. One can believe that there is something that exists (god) that we cannot observe in any possible manner. That is not irrational, that idea can be rationally defended. So you see now how everything else is left to subjectivity. It is a question of belief. If youre going to say there is no god fanatically (as this site does), you should understand that you do the same thing a theist does, that is believing something. And rationality is not on your side.

"What I say, and its my main point here, is that this debate has no value, because the persons participating are all amateurish novices and therefore cannot debate at a proper intellectual level. Believe me, I understand every word they say and every argument they use. But it is all terribly dumbed-down. You pick one of their arguments if you want me to break it, and Ill do it. I think the first law of thermodynamics-argument was enough of an example to discredit them."

Well, we know those two fucktards couldn't dismiss Brian and Kelly's arguments. There is also an open invitation for theists to do so on this site, or in debate. The arguments were presented clearly and intelligently, and perhaps you'd like to take a stab at shredding them. So far however they remain strong.

" This is where it gets tricky indeed, and its hard to stay objective. As I told you, god is not something you invoke to explain the unexplainable. It was often done so in human history, but one can believe in a god for other reasons."

Tell that to millions of people in which the ony idea that cements their faith is the creation of the universe (next to of course the bible which we all know has little factual bearing).

"It is not irrational as even rational reasoning cannot disprove it. One can believe that there is something that exists (god) that we cannot observe in any possible manner. That is not irrational, that idea can be rationally defended."

I have yet to see it rationally defended. That is without invoking outlandish claims.

"It is a question of belief. If youre going to say there is no god fanatically (as this site does), you should understand that you do the same thing a theist does, that is believing something. And rationality is not on your side."

Actually I don't believe there is no god, I lack a belief in a god. I am not proving that there is no god, simply disproving the claims of Christianity. Perhaps you can offer logic to prove me wrong? Either was rationality is on my side genius.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

"Well, we know those two fucktards couldn't dismiss Brian and Kelly's arguments. There is also an open invitation for theists to do so on this site, or in debate. The arguments were presented clearly and intelligently, and perhaps you'd like to take a stab at shredding them. So far however they remain strong."

No the two "fucktards" as you call them could not dismiss the other two fucktards' arguments. I told you, I broke their first law of thermodynamics-argument; that is enough of an example. If you want me to break an other one, tell me which one.

"I have yet to see it rationally defended. That is without invoking outlandish claims."

I just did! I just did! Again for the slow ones : Its rationally possible that something exists that one cannot observe in any possible manner : god.

"Actually I don't believe there is no god, I lack a belief in a god. I am not proving that there is no god, simply disproving the claims of Christianity."

Ah, wise decision creeping back likte that, disproving Christianity now and not theism in its totality. This site, though, tries the latter! Christianity emerged when rationality was not yet a popular way of thought, and the bible is indeed full of things which are probably lies. And so rationality is on your side for taking on this form, this envelope for theism called christianity. But many christians do not believe everything thats in the bible, but understand its ethical message, which is a good one.

"Either was rationality is on my side genius."

Again hardly a sentence, but as said above, only true if you trie to take on the ones who litteraly believe the bible. Theism stays an open question.

You have a lot to learn about the RRS, atheism, and cosmology. I hope that you'll stay here long enough to do so.

First, atheism and theism have to do with 'belief' not knowledge. We don't care if you don't 'know' because anyone that says they do is delusional in my opinion.

It's a lightswitch, not a dimmer switch. On or Off. You believe or you don't. Easy as that.

Second,

The law of conservation of Energy and Matter wrote:

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

Now, explain to me again why you think that the Big Bang would refute this law in any manner.

Third, When Nightline calls to ask for you to be in a Faceoff, you can expect some constructive criticism and you will get some asshole's opinions that don't really help. I urge you to learn more about the arguments instead of just the edited version presented to the public by abc.

It says :"Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics [The big bang theory]"

But again this is not my main point. The point is that you cannot disprove creationism so easily. A scientific law has value only now and here (A great value, I agree). But when we speak of creation, we surpass the field of application of thermodynamics. We must speak conceptually, and thermodynamics as a concept cannot disprove creation.

"Third, When Nightline calls to ask for you to be in a Faceoff, you can expect some constructive criticism and you will get some asshole's opinions that don't really help. I urge you to learn more about the arguments instead of just the edited version presented to the public by abc. "

The edited version on ABC permitted me to rapidly identify the low value of this debate, and people should know that they should better find proper matter to study than this pseudo-intellectual debate. Again, in order not to discriminate: both parties were execrable. Im not even interested in who won.